IBMO vs IVV
Ishares Ibonds Dec 2026 Term Muni Bond ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 505 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IBMO | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $581M | $865.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 2.39% | 1.09% | |
| Holdings | 743 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +0.06% | +13.80% | |
| 1Y Return | +0.79% | +23.01% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +2.50% | +21.77% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +0.30% | +13.39% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 3.7% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -14.8% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Apr 2, 2019 | May 15, 2000 |
IBMO vs IVV Performance
Ishares Ibonds Dec 2026 Term Muni Bond ETF (IBMO) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year IBMO returned +0.79% while IVV returned +23.01%. Year to date, IBMO is up 0.06% versus a gain of 13.80% for IVV.
Over three years, IBMO compounded at +2.50% per year against +21.77% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +0.30% and +13.39% respectively. Across the full 7-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.04% annualized vs +1.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.1% compared with 3.7% for IBMO. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -14.8% for IBMO and -56.5% for IVV. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.46. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IBMO charges 0.18% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $18 vs $3 annually, a gap of $15 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IBMO currently yields 2.39% against 1.09% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
IBMO and IVV share 0 holdings out of 778 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IBMO or IVV?
IBMO has an expense ratio of 0.18% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $15 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IBMO or IVV?
Over the past year IBMO returned +0.79% vs +23.01% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (7 years), IBMO annualized +1.61% vs +7.04% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IBMO or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 3.7% for IBMO. Worst drawdown: IBMO -14.8% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both IBMO and IVV?
IBMO and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.46, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between IBMO and IVV?
IBMO and IVV share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 778 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IBMO or IVV?
IBMO yields 2.39% while IVV yields 1.09%, so IBMO currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.